W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-comments@w3.org > September 2018

RE: DCAT 1.1 Public Review - Insee / DDI Alliance

From: Duffes Guillaume <guillaume.duffes@insee.fr>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:46:53 +0000
To: Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran <alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com>
CC: "public-dxwg-comments@w3.org" <public-dxwg-comments@w3.org>, "Joachim Wackerow" <Joachim.Wackerow@gesis.org>, "wlt@umn.edu" <wlt@umn.edu>, "Jared Lyle" <lyle@umich.edu>, Cotton Franck <franck.cotton@insee.fr>, Kelly Chatain <kchatain@umich.edu>
Message-ID: <39559E14C93A5B4AB4C314F40D1CD73D019E721CA5@pdexchbalwst03.ad.insee.intra>
Hi,

Thank you very much for your responses. I don't have any further comment at this point, but let you know if some others ermerge.
In regard to the relationship between dcat:Dataset and dctype:Dataset or the absence of it are unclear to me, however, we thought that in both it would be better to specify/justify it.

Cheers,

Guillaume

________________________________
De : Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran [mailto:alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 13 septembre 2018 20:30
À : Duffes Guillaume
Cc : public-dxwg-comments@w3.org; Joachim Wackerow; wlt@umn.edu; Jared Lyle; Cotton Franck; Kelly Chatain
Objet : Re: DCAT 1.1 Public Review - Insee / DDI Alliance

Hi Guillaume,

I am interleaving below the replies to your comments. Thanks again for looking at the revised version of DCAT and we welcome further comments.

>- Note 5 / Issue #98: The subtyping relationship between dctype:Dataset and dcat:Dataset has been removed. Although the subtype was indeed too >restrictive, should another relationship not be added to characterise the relationship between both and leave the user helpless?

We discussed this today and interpreted that some more clarification on the removal of the property is needed.

An issue has been created:
https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/350
and a Pull Request with the proposed clarification is available here:
https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/351

Is there anything else you suggest we include in order to help the user w.r..t. to these relationships?

>- 11 DCAT Profiles, Issue 72, "for spcific applications" --> "for specific applications"

This was fixed, see https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#profiles

>- Define guidelines how to create a DCAT description of a VOID or Data Cube dataset<https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/88>:
>    ** We agree with the fact that this "DCAT using QB" should be harmonised with VOID and clarified. It is crucial for the official statistics community to >use the proper semantics and relationship between these vocabularies.
>    ** In our mind, qb:DataStructureDefinition and qd:Slice are meant to express subsets (see also #161<https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/161>) like "startups in Italy". A similar use case is >provided in the RDF Data Cube Recommendation.

We added your comment to the issue

https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/88#issuecomment-420898806




as it is still under discussion.

>Comment from the DDI Alliance that clarifies the link between Disco and the future DDI4:
>- Disco is based on common content of DDI Lifecycle 3.2 and DDI 2.1 focused on the discovery of statistical (micro)datasets.. Disco was never formally >published by DDI.
>The new model-driven version of the standard, DDI 4, will be also expressed as an OWL ontology (in the works), and be a complete and in-depth overhaul. >In particular, it will encompass all kinds of data, not only statistical micro data. It takes over the features from Disco. A prototype release of DDI 4 will be >published in the middle of the year. It will include the UML model and related complete representations/bindings in XML Schema and OWL/RDF-S.

We added this comment into the issue 164 (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/164#issuecomment-421101415), which requires further discussion.

Please, do let us know if you have further comments.

Many thanks,

Alejandra

On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 13:54, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran <alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com<mailto:alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Guillaume,

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, there was a problem with the email address for public comments before. I has now been fixed. I checked and I hadn't received your email before. Apologies for that and thanks for resending.

We will discuss your comments on the next meeting and get back to you.

Best regards,

Alejandra



On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 13:23, Duffes Guillaume <guillaume.duffes@insee.fr<mailto:guillaume.duffes@insee.fr>> wrote:
Dear all,

Having not received any feedback, and noticed that none of the remarks has been added on Github or corrected in the draft version (e.g the typo in the issue 72), I take the opportunity to relaunch you.

Regards,

Guillaume Duffes
Insee

________________________________
De : Duffes Guillaume
Envoyé : lundi 11 juin 2018 10:19
À : 'public-dxwg-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-dxwg-comments@w3.org>'
Cc : 'Wackerow, Joachim'; Wendy Thomas; Jared Lyle; Cotton Franck; Kelly Chatain
Objet : DCAT 1.1 Public Review - Insee / DDI Alliance

Dear all,

Firstly thank you very much for the release of this new public working document and the very detailed and in-depth work you have been doing especially on GitHub. You can find below a couple of remarks from the French National Statistical Institute, Insee, and one from the DDI Alliance the editor of Disco one of the Related non-W3C vocabularies you have been discussing.
- Note 5 / Issue #98: The subtyping relationship between dctype:Dataset and dcat:Dataset has been removed. Although the subtype was indeed too restrictive, should another relationship not be added to characterise the relationship between both and leave the user helpless?
- 11 DCAT Profiles, Issue 72, "for spcific applications" --> "for specific applications"
- Define guidelines how to create a DCAT description of a VOID or Data Cube dataset<https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/88>:
    ** We agree with the fact that this "DCAT using QB" should be harmonised with VOID and clarified. It is crucial for the official statistics community to use the proper semantics and relationship between these vocabularies..
    ** In our mind, qb:DataStructureDefinition and qd:Slice are meant to express subsets (see also #161<https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/161>) like "startups in Italy". A similar use case is provided in the RDF Data Cube Recommendation.

Comment from the DDI Alliance that clarifies the link between Disco and the future DDI4:
- Disco is based on common content of DDI Lifecycle 3.2 and DDI 2.1 focused on the discovery of statistical (micro)datasets.. Disco was never formally published by DDI.
The new model-driven version of the standard, DDI 4, will be also expressed as an OWL ontology (in the works), and be a complete and in-depth overhaul.. In particular, it will encompass all kinds of data, not only statistical micro data. It takes over the features from Disco. A prototype release of DDI 4 will be published in the middle of the year. It will include the UML model and related complete representations/bindings in XML Schema and OWL/RDF-S.
Regards,

Guillaume Duffes
(33)141175278
INSEE
Received on Friday, 14 September 2018 06:48:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 14 September 2018 06:48:34 UTC